Counterpoint: 5 Reasons Why ‘John Carter’ Is A Disappointing Movie

Published 3 years ago
by
John Hanlon
, Updated March 10th, 2012 at 2:11 pm,
This is a list post.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a counterpoint to our positive review of John Carter, and reflects the sole opinion of contributor John Hanlon.]John Cartercould have been a good movie. In fact, I included it in a list of 10 films that we here at Screen Rant were looking forward to this month. The trailer made the imagery look exciting and I was eagerly anticipating one of the first leading movie roles that Friday Night Lights alum Taylor Kitsch was taking on. Unfortunately, I was massively disappointed by this tired adaptation of the iconic Edgar Rice Burroughs story.
Admittedly, some here at Screen Rant have enjoyed this wannabe sci-fi epic, including managing editor Kofi Outlaw, who wrote our official John Carter review. But as a viewer and a critic, I was greatly disappointed - so I've composed a list of five reasons why the movie was a 'fail' for me. As always, let us know your own opinion in the comments below.

WARNING!!! ARTICLE CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS!!!

The Concept

John Carter focuses on the title character, who in the late 19th century is a Civil War veteran frustrated with the war. He’s a veritable misanthrope who no longer wishes to fight, and declines an invitation to rejoin the battle. But shortly after he rejects that idea, he is mysteriously transported to Mars, where he unwittingly becomes involved in a battle for the survival of that planet and its inhabitants.
This strange concept seems bizarre enough to scare away possible viewers. A Civil War veteran fighting on Mars? This isn’t a plot that should be adapted into a movie. It sounds more like a dream someone has when they’ve been spent an evening reading both history and comic books. It's not an interesting mix of concepts (or at least, it's very dated) and this shows throughout the story.

The Characters

Okay. Getting beyond the bizarre story that finds Carter on a distant planet, it’s important to focus on the characters in the film. Strong relatable characters can, at times, compensate for a bad plot or a silly storyline.
However, that doesn't happen here. For me, there were no interesting or identifiable characters in the entire film. Carter himself is a bland stereotypical archetype unwilling to engage in battle until he is thrust into it. At least Luke Skywalker served as a relatable character in Star Wars. But he had more personality than Carter. Not even any of the aliens he befriends are memorable. In fact, I found it difficult to keep track of them because I didn't care for any of them.

The Dialogue

The dialogue throughout this entire story is often atrociously wooden. First off, Carter’s banal banter is tough to bear. He speaks in strong committed sentences - “We’re nothing but a war species and I want no part of it,” he says, as if he has the authority of Moses. He continues with declarative sentences throughout the picture. “I don’t fight for anyone,” he says later, adding, “War is a shameful thing.” There’s no depth to dialogue like this and little reasoning behind it. It’s okay for a character to have a certain mindset about something, but Carter’s dialogue is so dry and uninspired that it’s hard to take an interest in him.
Not to mention the fact that the aliens' dialogue isn't any better. “You are ugly but you are beautiful,” one says to Carter. Of course, these throwaway lines are only the tip of the iceberg. When Carter first arrives on Mars, the aliens think that his real name is "Virginia" - a running joke that never actually works. And the romance between Carter and his alien princess doesn’t work because the script throws them together too quickly and never tries to find any depth in their relationship - something stronger dialogue could have helped develop.

The Run Time

It is one thing to make a disappointing film. It is quite another thing to make a disappointing film that lasts for nearly two and a half hours. John Carter meanders its way through 137 minutes of silliness and overdone action sequences. By the end of the movie, I understood the story that the writers were attempting to tell, but it should never have taken that long to get there.
More does not always equal better - see Transformers 2 for details - and this film seems to pack in as much action and battle sequences as possible. That doesn’t translate into an exciting movie. It translates into a failed epic that goes on for far too long with little depth or substance.

Lackluster Effects & Moments

There are so many more reasons to be disappointed in John Carter. In addition to the aforementioned items, the visual effects aren’t even that good. Many of them look extremely fake, and for a movie that cost so much to produce, it’s surprising that the CGI team offered such a mediocre product.
The story also offers up a few other reasons to be disappointed. There’s a silly paternity revelation involving two aliens that feels like it could have been featured on an extraterrestrial version of Jerry Springer. There’s also a scene where Carter kills a beast and is covered in its blue blood, which makes it seem like Kitsch is either auditioning for a role in the Blue Man Group, or an extra in the new season of Arrested Development. These scenes add to the silliness of this entire endeavor.

5 Reasons why 'John Carter' is such a Disappointing Film

John Carter is attracting mixed reviews from critics so it’s likely to engender debate among the audience (Feel free to join the debate at our John Carter Discussion thread).
As a fan of the Star Wars, I wanted this movie to work and to signal the beginning of a new epic science fiction series. Instead, it just showed me how hard it is to create a quality film with so many details to include. Screen Rant critic Kofi Outlaw and I surely disagree on the success of John Carter, but I encourage you to check out his review and then tell us who you think is right about this movie.
Here, again, are my five reasons for being so disappointed in John Carter….

168 Comments

Post a Comment

Want to change your avatar?Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Rules: No profanity or personal attacks. Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

foopher 2.0 3 years ago

I just saw the movie… pretty sure I WASN’T disappointed. Why do people have to be such goobers?

Why is there always someone who hates. Is there anything you liked. About the movie? I feel this film had bad marketing surrounded by the controversy. Of its huge budget cast a negative perception of the film even before it came out.

I find it odd though that you found the trailer exciting when no one else seem to (until the 10min preview) and most that saw the film felt the trailers did the film no justice.

This counterpoint review as a whole makes me feel like when I went to see the movie “Wanted” all over again.

I went with people that didn’t know anything about the graphic novel but some how went in with some massive misplaced expectations for that film. Basically I sat through the whole movie with these people saying things like “a bullet can’t bend like that…”.

I know as a critic you do not have the luxury to just go and see a film just to escape for a few hours. You have to find the “art” in it and constantly compare the film to others which were exceptional in your mind but… if you go in trying to compare something to Star Wars right off the bat I don’t think it’s going to work out.

My expectations were a lot lower. I enjoyed the film for what it was and nothing more. I read a few of the original books a while back and they minute it was announced Disney was doing this I knew it would only be as good as that family friendly standard they have carved out for themselves.

mongoose - one of the few people who thought Green lantern was ok 3 years ago

I haven’t even seen the movie yet but I don’t think this was fair just from what I’ve seen. The issues I do have with the film weren’t even listed.

I think the original review, while generally positive did include negative commentary so there was no need for a purely negative PoV imho. Maybe if SR had given it a gushing, 5 out of 5 review but they didn’t.

Wow! The first point on the list was that the film shouldn’t have been made in the first place!? Really!!!??? You’re just a bundle of fun aren’t you. Seems like you’d already decided to hate the movie from the outset.

A counterpoint is misplaced if you don’t have a point attached. The feature would be better if it was a collaborative review with one reviewer arguing for the movie and one against. A bad review of a movie is fine, but I wouldn’t call it a counterpoint.

Not really a fan of this “counterpoint” thing…
It pretty much seems like a bash fest IMO.
I’ll rather stick to the normal reviews (the ones that are usually unbiased, fair and where the good AND bad stuff gets pointed out – unless of course, there isn’t any good or bad stuff – which definitely wasn’t the case with John Carter since it DID have good and bad – not just bad.).

Nothing against John Hanlon, but this isn’t the type of articles I expect from the screenrant I know and love.

I thought John Carter was okay but sorry Guy, your comment came off as dumb. Using the word “misanthrope” doesn’t take away from an article’s credibility but that was an interesting leap you made. If you could please explain the difference between classic and dated and why John Carter falls under the category of “classic” that’d be great. The article was pretty short unless you’re a slow reader (and in that case I’d tell you to stop reading my comment now because you must be getting tired). Also, you basically reinforce his point about the movie being too long since you didn’t uh, you know, disagree? Oh but you haven’t seen the film…so you don’t know where Hanlon is coming from…or if you’d even disagree after watching (personally I thought Kofi gave a fair and decent review but I can see where Hanlon is coming from with the points he’s made). Ultimately, a 3.5 star rating isn’t THAT good, and definitely falls short of epic, which is probably why the writer of this article is disappointed.

What it all comes down to is what kind of viewer you’re going in as. If you know what mindset you have, then go with the review that reflects that mindset. Nothing is wrong with an article countering another article on the site; it gives us as readers more to think about when it comes to a particular film (especially one that’s getting mixed reviews across the board). And your last…uh…”reason” which was: “haters gonna hate,” is so typical and sad cuz you couldn’t think of anything else that there should be a monument dedicated to it.

My comment was made tongue in cheek ! A review should contain the good aspects of a movie then the bad aspects of a movie in the reviewers opinion then a conclusion and a reconmendation , basicly what i am looking for is a well balanced assesment of a film , this way of reviewing a film is pointless , when John sat down to write this article he had a one track point of view i need to think of everything NEGATIVE to write about this film just to justify my own article , i bet there were one or two things he liked about the movie but could not mention them as this would make his whole point of view nul and void , this to me is a pointless review , So my comment was made not to insult John but to show my disaproval for this type of review .

The difference between classic and dated , is simple The John Carter books and the ideas within them are considered classic works of litarature .

And as for ” Haters gonna Hate ” this was an ironic statement as the whole agenda of this article was to show hate to John Carter .

To your first paragraph, this wasn’t a review. You can find the review under “‘John Carter’ Review”. So there’s your fist mistake. And starting a comment off with “Reasons why this article SUCKS !” is not only insulting to the writer, but to the ideas that get greenlit for an article on the site as a whole. Say you didn’t mean to insult John all you want, but all you did was belittle his writing.

Also, you didn’t state the difference between classic and dated, you just said John Carter is considered (read: in people’s opinions) classic works of literature. In actuality, something can be considered classic AND dated by the same source. For example: Bach’s classical music is dated….ironic you couldn’t tell me the difference between classic and dated considering you bashed John about this…

“And as for ‘ Haters gonna Hate ‘ this was an ironic statement as the whole agenda of this article was to show hate to John Carter .”

It is a typical cliche and overused statement and in no way can be considered a reason why the article “sucked”. To reiterate what you said: “This article wasn’t good because the person who wrote it didn’t like the movie and people who didn’t like the movie are gonna not like the movie”….

@Spyke Dude, first, I didn’t say majority didn’t rule, and I was quite aware of the rest of the comments, thanks. Second, that doesn’t change the attributes of TOGWLQoS’s comment (and its lack of logic); and nowhere did I say he isn’t entitled to his opinion, nor the “90% of readers” opinions that you just made up considering you cannot count the number of readers who visited the article and simply didn’t comment. Lastly, I hope you know that in all fairness, even the minority is entitled to their opinion.

” This article wasnt good because the person who wrote it didnt like the movie and people who didnt like the movie are gonna not like the movie ” You have put that comment in quotation marks implying i said those words ! Show me were i said those exact words ? You wont be able to because i never said them ! have your opinion all you want , thats cool and makes for a good debate ! but dont say i said things i have never said . you invented that quote .

Then: “Haters gonna hate” = “the person who wrote it didnt like the movie and people who didnt like the movie are gonna not like the movie”

Therefore, by you saying “This article sucked because haters gonna hate” makes as much sense as “This article wasnt good because the person who wrote it didnt like the movie and people who didnt like the movie are gonna not like the movie”

I have made all the valid points here , you have not made one single intresting point , you have just tried to pick apart my logic unsuccesfully infront of everyone , read the comments people have supported my points , Your the one concentrating on me because you have no intresting points of your own .

Valid?? HA! Your points hold absolutely no water and are too easy to pick apart. I’ve successfully picked them apart because I’ve stated why you’re wrong and you haven’t stated why I’m wrong. Your “5 reasons” are PATHETIC. That’s my point. Interesting? I kind of find it interesting that you criticized John about not stating the difference between classic and dated (as if he had to) considering you couldn’t even do it. Do you know how stupid and hypocritical that makes you look? So ironic. I also find it interesting that you think using the word “misanthrope” takes away from the article and made a giant stupid leap with the claims about the author, and while I pointed out how dumb those claims were, you haven’t proven me wrong. I also find it interesting that you didn’t see the movie and insist on disagreeing with someone who actually has, yet you don’t disagree about one of his points (the film was too long), making it look like you’re just looking for reasons to be a jerk cuz a writer wrote something you mistakenly thought was a review.

Everything you said was a pathetic critique of the article. You actually think what you said was valid? Wow. Sorry, it wasn’t. It was very poor and dumb.

Mike C. 3 years ago

Bro, this isn’t grammar class alright? But if you want to get technical… A double apostrophe can act as a quoting device OR as an interjection. Since you’re so smart I won’t bother explaining what an interjection is.

Wow, I guess there are words I consider to be mainly pretentious sounding, but “misanthrope” is common enough, and it’s descriptive. Glad you were only joking.

I disagree with your “classic and dated” arguments. John Carter, or even Tarzan, aren’t classic “literature.” They are maybe classic “pulp-fiction,” in a nostalgic sense. Regardless, I think there has been way to much appealing from the JC marketing and from fans that this movie is something we should see because it’s part of the inspiration (for the inspiration, for the inspiration, etc.), for Star Wars, Superman, and Avatar. That’s a good recommendation for reading the original books, for people interested in that sort of history. It’s not good for an expensive movie, and general audiences. To me, the more I heard that, the more it sounded like they were excusing this movies’ resemblance to so many other famous movies.

At first I was also surprised by the CGI level but after the first 15 minutes of the Mars scenes I thought a lot of the special effects were flawless and looked amazing in 3D. Started to look seamless.

You have my sympathies. Being so difficult to satisfy let alone please has to be a real downer. Critics may see themselves as being more enlightened in cinema but the truth is they just make themselves more difficult to please and I personally would hate to go thru life not being able to simply enjoy a film unless its a near perfect masterpiece.

A tough but chivalrous male protagonist, from Earth of a period not too distant from our own, finds himself transported to a distant world. The transportation may be via astral projection, teleportation, time travel, or any similar form of scientific magic, but should not imply that travel between worlds is either easy or common. The Earthman thus finds himself the sole representative of his own race on an alien planet. This planet is at a pre-modern, even barbaric stage of civilization, but may here and there have remarkable technologies that hint at a more advanced past. There is no obligation for the physical properties or biology of the alien planet to follow any scientific understanding of the potential conditions of habitable worlds; in general, the conditions will be earth-like, but with variations such as a different-colored sun or different numbers of moons. A lower gravity may be invoked to explain such things as large flying animals or people, or the superhuman strength of the hero, but will otherwise be ignored.

So if you go in just to see a fun movie, you won’t be disappointed.

I’ve seen it three times, 2D, 3D and 3D Imax. I recommend the 2D… believe it or not it’s easier it see the intricacies of the animation in 2D.

mongoose - one of the few people who thought Green lantern was ok 3 years ago

I’m sorry but the movie does not faithfully follow the source material. It may have some somewhat familiar characters and go in the same general direction as the book(s) but that’s about it. Disney took significant liberties with not only the visuals but also in most parts of the story.

I understand adaptions have inherent deviations for a number of reasons, foremost being the impossible task of telling the story from the book in 2-3 hrs, but this movie deviated in places I felt were completely unnecessary.

That being said, it did not deserve this article. Even if Disney had met my expectations, the article’s author would still have disliked it for the same reasons.

Well this article seems misplaced to me…. just after reading the first segment I thought: this belongs as a comment from a hater on the main review thread! Not as a full article.

He seems to be bashing all he could about the movie, even the source material…. and I think there’s enough of that on the comment section of your articles guys! It just felt to DSB’d to be featured as an piece! I know the old time commentators on the site will know what I mean by my description of this stuff…. :-S

Wow! People are getting a little worked up.
I like the idea of getting two different perspectives on a film. It encourages debate amongst us readers. If the site only had rave and glowing reviews of everything it would be boring.
So what if John didn’t like the film. It’s no reason to get offended. Just state the reasons why you disagree and debate it.
Isn’t that what we do here? I’ve been coming to this site multiple times daily for a year and a half because of the fact that it’s fun to talk about and debate Movies/TV and get different opinions.
Please do these pieces more!!!!

Its not so much that they have conflicting reviews so much as his reasons for not liking the movie. His apparrent dislike of the main concept for starters, what exactly is so wrong with a civil war vet being transported to Mars. Would you like it better if it was a Iraqi vet? I just don’t see why that seems to bother him so much. Personally I like the idea, someone from a time that has no real notion of extra-terrestrial life, as opposed to a more modern character that grew up with the idea of aliens as a plausibility.

John Hanlon, welcome to the SR staff and all. I like this counterpoint idea and I respect your opinion on the film but I disagree 90%.

1. This story of a Civil War vet going to Mars was written in the early 20th century, and the story is a classic. They didnt need to change it to him being a Vietnam vet or anything. It was fine.

2. The characters were fine, sure the head cavalry guy from Earth and the princess fathers were bland but not every one. And the aliens were distinguishable so I dont understand why you had trouble.

3. The Dialogue in some areas was bad (especially at the beginning on Earth) but it got better. The ones use used weren’t bad, he is a war weary vet of course he is going to say bad things about war after what he had been through.

4. The length was fine, I hate when films are short.

5. I don’t know what film you were watching but the effects were really good on the John Carter I saw.

The opposing view is a waste of time. It really is please do not implement it. The critics who are writing for screenrant should already be able to write unbiased reviews of a film without needing another critic to write a counter point.

The comment section then offers different opinions of the movie. This to me is very petty and annoying

Saw it and liked it but wasn’t as good as it could have been or as I wanted, probably won’t buy it when it comes out on Blue Ray/DVD. Even though this little rant is a bit hash, there are some points that are true.

A lot of you are sounding like babies complaining over something so small, not everyone is going to have the same views as you

the point that i believe people are making is that this counter point criticism is petty and a waste of time. A critic’s job is to write a well written piece laying out what the movie did right and what a movie did wrong.

Right there you are already going to have the positive and the negative. As someone already posted earlier to make this article note worthy and relevant they have to basically rehash what all the negative comments are going to already say on the original review without giving any pros.

even the movies who have gotten one star on screenrant for the most part at least had one pro written into them. So a review that is purposely trying to highlight the cons seems rather unprofessional, but again if john did find pros in the movie he would be able to put them in his review because it would be a duplicate review of the John carter movie. It’s just point less.

I just saw the movie then red the reviews. I cant believe it got such bad reviews.I read the series 35 years ago and its been the one I,ve enjoyed the most. I was hoping not to be disapointed and I wasnt. My wife even liked it and she. Why listen to critics? So if they dont like the color blue does that mean I wont. Thumbs up for John Carter. I think Edger Rice would be happy.

Personally, I like a counterpoint review feature. There have been and will continue to be many Screen Rant reviews, that people don’t agree with and the star rating seems way off. Of the top of my head right now , I remember ‘Red’ getting 5 out of 5 and thinking ‘no way in a million years’.

Even the great films have flaws that may not be picked up first tome round. This feature may have got more people to realise that The Dark Knight may not have been the centre of the cinematic universe after all. A counterpoint gives cause for greater debate and offers a new perspective. Remember that a counterpoint view may not always be a negative one. I guess the only drawbacks are that it means more work for the Screen Rant staff and there’s only so many times you can analyse a movie.

People need to realise that a negative review doesn’t automatically make the critic a hater. Many have almost taken personal offence to the review – but most comments in at he article seemed fair and have have matched many other reviews from other critics. I would only question the view on the film;s concept. If we accept Transformers or Avatar – then John Carter’s concept doesn’t seem as bad. People do need to face it, general conscensus is that John Carter is worse than ‘not good’.

Surely you must agree though its a two way street as you say a great movie can have flaws , so carnt a bad movie have some positives , that is most peoples problem with this article it does not allow John Carter to have that .

I agree with you there, that’s pretty much what I said earlier, its not so much his difference of opinion, ad him bashkng an odes in general with no apparent reason. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I have no opinion on it of my own, its the reason I read these, to get other perspective. It just looks like this guy set out to give s bad review from the start.

@ Pharoah , It wont let me reply anymore so my reply is down here , Wow you want me to explain why you are wrong , that is very easy you say this is not a review of the movie , you are WRONG , this is Johns ” counter ” review to Kofis review one good review , one bad that is the whole reason for the article it is Johns Review of John Carter ! No if and or buts ! We need the man himself or another writer / editor to confirm this was ment to be the negatve side of the coin of John Carter A Bad review !

As for picking apart my points i must of blinked and mist that , LOL , All you did was prove you did not know what a quote was , You can quote me on that by the way , LOL !

Seems that a lot of people here don’t like the idea of a counterpoint review of movies,so here’s a solution,DON’T READ IT! Problem solved.And furthermore,why even bother replying to it if all you want to do is gush over a movie and not hear anyone’s opposing opinion?

Sorry,but this whole argument is stupid.If you have a problem with his review,so what! You shouldn’t let what he says stop you from enjoying a movie.

There must be something inherent with the human condition that makes it where people want to have everyone agree with what they think is right(I guess this is probably why The Crusades started,but nevermind that).

Seems that divergent points of view are always met with harsh criticism,especially when the majority is an overwhelming amount.

My all time favorite movie,without debate,is Fight Club,and I couldn’t give a rat’s rectum if people don’t like it because I like it that much,and there’s absolutely nothing short of a guy with a shotgun to my temple that could make me say that I don’t like the movie.

Which makes me wonder now,is it that the people that rally behind certain things like this movie and curse critics,do they really like the movie as much as they think that they do? Or is it a case that they liked it,and since critics are pretty much down on it,they make themselves like it more than they probably would’ve just out of spite?

I have no answers to some of these philosophical question,only theories,but in the end,what difference does it really make?

The original story, John Carter of Mars, like the Conan the Barbarian and Tarzan stories, which all came from the pulp fantasy genre following the Great Depression, when folks were desperate for any kind of escapism, and the more fantastic the better. So even if some of the material may seem dated by today’s standards, these stories all still had a sort of epic adventure and sense of wonder about ‘em, that frankly this movie retelling lacks. And too many things just seemed “thin” and “underwhelming” here, from the skinny leadman, to the skinny aliens, to a skinny Deja Thoris, who’s certainly attractive, but still looks positively anorexic compared to all the classically voluptuous versions illustrated by everyone from Frank Frazetta to Boris Vallejo (hint: just type “Deja Thoris” in Google Images and see what I’m talking about). Compare this movie, to say, the Conan movies with Arnie, which may have been even a little silly at times, but still managed to capture that “larger than life” sensibility of the original stories.
Or maybe “family-friendly” Disney was simply the wrong company for a more “intense” and “mature” tale like this one. In any case, I have to agree, it was a disappointment.

I don’t think Disney was ever going to make a positive movie about a man of honour who enjoyed fighting, still less about one who fought under the Confederate flag. Of course no modern hero is as brave and honourable as John Carter, just look at what they did to Aragorn.

Within the limitations imposed by modern writers, John Carter isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not a great movie.

I hear ‘ya re: Disney and Confederate fightin’ men, though in fairness a lot has changed since these stories first came out in post-Depression America, when their main “demographic” was mostly unemployed small-town boys and similar “sons of the south”, all fresh off the farm, and with a long & honored “cultural tradition” of drinkin’ and fightin’!
The economic conditions may not be all that different today, but obviously the audience has become a lot more diverse and “multi-cultural” now. And even recasting the heroine in a less sexy or “traditional” role is probably just a reflection of that new reality.

John Carter, well as a fan of the novels I must say that it was incredible. I recognize its flaws, (a bit slow, and a decent screenplay), but it also has many strengths, ( visual sights, characters, acting, a great ending and fun action scenes).

Nothing in your review will make me feel otherwise…cheesy dialogue? Bad premise? Long run time? All-out CGI? Gotta do better to keep me from seeing it. I even kinda liked the Asylum version of this story…